Blog @ MoreWhat.com

We’ve come a long way baby but Cokie Roberts and Carli Fiorina pointed out numbers like only 16% of CEOs and other executives or something less than 20% in the public and private sector is represented by women yet men only represented 36% of the vote in the recent election. And later Cokie Roberts displayed her extreme liberal bias by giving George Will ‘the look’ for his position on the ability of free markets to regulate themselves. And what man really needed Sam Donaldson to step up to defend the stronger sex as a rebuttal to Roberts and Fiorina? The lefties in this cast of special interest masquerading as unbiased journalists are ‘all in’ for the Obama Administration, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and all the spending they can muster. George Will’s more conservative approach is always outnumbered by voices from the far left fringe. It should also be noted that Carli Fiorina made some sense when commenting on private sector such as CEOs coming to Washington for help should at the same time ‘tender their resignations’ for their lack of good judgment contributing to the current financial ills. After her fiasco at HP it did provide a little comic relief.

George ‘S’ makes his attempt to look objective when interviewing Pelosi but fails to convince by allowing her a pass on discussions like the following:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family-planning services, how is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crisis now, and part of it, what we do for children’s health, education, and some of those elements, are to help the states meet their financial needs.

One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, is — will reduce cost to the state and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned, what the economists have told us, from right to left, there is more bang for the buck, is the term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cuts.

Nonetheless, we are committed to the tax cuts because they do have a positive impact on the economy, even though not as big as the investments.

(the above is taken from the CQ version of the transcript although both ABC and CQ were reviewed)

Number one, what the hell does contraception have to do with saving money at the federal and state level? Rather than using tax cuts to boost the private sector in both consumer spending and job creation Pelosi and her ilk prefer to use the funds of taxpaying citizens to give money to non-taxpaying citizens. Another redistribution of wealth to align with her new leader and all the other socialists now permeating our government.

No, what Pelosi is thinking is that her spending ideas will sustain those who live off the government. If she is so convinced the D party’s ideas will create so many jobs why is she worried about contraception, food stamps and unemployment compensation, etc. Because she knows their plan will not create jobs for the larger economy just their ‘infrastructure’ plans. Those who lose jobs now will exhaust their benefits and become dependent on her and her socialist friends. Their spending on public infrastructure will add to those depending on and beholding to government. The other spending they pursue will sustain the nanny state and increase the number of those receiving public funds to survive.

Welcome to the new world order of socialism in the United States brought to you by members of the Socialist Democratic party.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And many analysts have looked at it and said the only way to really deal with it — these banks are so close to insolvency, dealing with so many toxic assets — that the only way to deal with it fairly, without giving a big boon to shareholders, is to have nationalization or partial nationalization of the banks. Good idea?

PELOSI: Well, whatever you want to call it, there has to be — if we are going to put money into the banks, we certainly want equity for the American people. In other words, if we are strengthening them, then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening.

Some people call that nationalization; I’m not talking about total ownership, but we’re just saying. Now, how big that investment becomes is — would we have ever thought we would see the day when we’d even be using that terminology, nationalization of the banks? You see the impact it has on the stock market, just terrible, in terms of the bank stocks going down, because if you’re a shareholder and you see what would be a dilution of your investment, because now the federal government — if we’re putting — if the taxpayer is putting money up, the taxpayer should have equity.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So it might be necessary?

PELOSI: Well, not by the terminology that you use, but some increased investment. Change has to happen in terms of what is done, what the transparency of it is, what the accountability of it is. Only then would we be able to pass any additional funding.

Call it whatever you like Nancy, a rose by any other name, socialism is socialism. If you like double-speak, mumble-speak or just plain stupid enjoy this next excerpt where Nancy Pelosi demonstrates her grasp of things financial.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Some of their suggestions that they’ve put forward are permanently cutting the two lowest tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent, also new help for small businesses. Can you include those in your package?

PELOSI: When — when we had the recovery package last year, we brought the tax credit all the way down, regarding using payroll tax as a — as a tax and therefore you get a credit. Against using that precedent, which was established with President Bush, we built upon that in this legislation, and we prefer that route.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And they’re saying that’s giving a check to people who don’t pay taxes rather than cutting taxes for people who do.

PELOSI: But they do pay taxes, payroll taxes. And President Bush agreed with that last year. And using that precedent, we have built upon that.

We’re all in a great deal of trouble and I mostly blame all of us but especially voters who did not think it through.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Trackposted to  Rosemary’s Thoughts, Political Byline, Conservative Cat, The World According to Carl, and DragonLady’s World, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The world favors closing the Guantanamo facility.  Well, much of the world favors it.  After urging its closing for years European countries are now realizing the ‘political and security implications’ of releasing detainees.  Aside from the ‘activists’ and defense lawyers calling for the facility’s closure ‘much of the world’ may not be so comfortable with releasing detainees now that it is clear many have returned to terrorist groups.

China called for the return of 17 ‘nationals’ who are Uighurs.  And what exactly is China’s record with their Uighur population?  Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan suggests support for the war on terror will be easier to win if this happens.  While some say situations like the Gitmo story encourage recruitment among terror groups are we to take that information without qualification?  How do you determine how many would join terror groups with or without events like Abu Ghraib and keeping detainees in Gitmo?  And does the reaction to terrorism by the rest of the world really have an impact?  Have those who cowered to terrorism or the threat of it been spared the senseless violence?  If you have a powerful response to terror or a moderate one does it make a difference and who has the data or proof to offer?

‘A number of former Guantanamo detainees said the decision has come too late’ so what does it matter? And then there is the problem of where detainees go.  The second report raises the issue of how successful would countries be in receiving detainees without the threat of further terrorist activity?  After a DoD report on the number of released detainees who returned to terrorist groups and acknowledgment of that by such groups what is the litmus test on detainees?  Is their guilt or innocence to be determined by what they do after release?  How’s that for intelligence?

Yemen says they will get many detainees in the next few months and ‘make sure they do not escape and rejoin terrorist groups.’ That’s reassuring. NOT.  Is this the Obama Administration’s first major blunder in the making?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Much of the world is welcoming President Barack Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, but the global response also indicates an awareness of the challenges involved in shutting down the unpopular detention facility.

In Europe, many countries that have been urging closure of the prison for years are now debating whether to take in ex-detainees after they are released - decisions with serious political and security implications.

In Afghanistan, where many of the detainees were captured, President Hamid Karzai said closing Guantanamo will make it easier to win international support for the war against terrorism.

Human rights groups said ordering the prison’s closure is a step in the right direction, but they also are urging the new administration to follow through.

Amnesty International said it “sends an important message to the rest of the world that the USA is now closing a dark chapter in its history.” Human Rights Watch official Jennifer Daskal said, “By shutting down a global symbol of abuse [it] will deprive terrorists of a powerful recruitment tool.”

China Thursday called again for the return of 17 Chinese nationals being held at Guantanamo. The men are Uighurs, a Muslim minority group living in part of northwestern China.

And Cuba called for the closure of the entire U.S. military base at Guantanamo. In an interview with Russia’s Itar-Tass news agency, Cuban President Raul Castro said the base should be shut down and the territory it occupies returned to what he calls its legal owners - the Cuban people.

In Saudi Arabia, the families of some detainees still being held in the prison have welcomed the decision to close it, hoping to be reunited with their relatives. But a number of former Guantanamo detainees said the decision has come too late.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.

Yemen’s president says his country is preparing to take back 94 Yemeni prisoners from the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh told Yemeni security officials Saturday the U.S. will release the prisoners within the next three months, and promised to make sure they do not escape and rejoin extremists groups.

U.S. President Barack Obama signed an order Thursday to close the controversial facility within one year, but there are questions about what to do with the terrorists suspects still held there.

Earlier this week, two men claiming to be former prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility appeared on a video tape, claiming they had rejoined al-Qaida and are now senior militant officials in Yemen.

Pakistan’s foreign ministry Saturday expressed support for the U.S. decision to shut the center, saying it adds what it called a “much needed moral dimension in dealing with terrorism.”

According to a list compiled by the Washington Post, there are currently six Pakistani nationals being held at Guantanamo. They include top suspects accused of planning the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Meantime, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi says his government is seeking permission to meet with two Malaysians held at Guantanamo, and to have them serve their sentences in their home country. He also praised the decision to shut the facility.

Some U.S. lawmakers have voiced concerns that shutting Guantanamo may allow some dangerous detainees to be set free.

The U.S. Defense Department says as many as 61 former Guantanamo prisoners have returned to terrorism. On Friday, U.S. security officials confirmed that a man released from the facility in late 2007 has become the deputy leader of al-Qaida’s branch in Yemen.

Mr. Obama has ordered a review of all 245 detainees at the center, to decide how to prosecute those that may have committed crimes.

Okay, the Clintons made big noise about leaving Chelsea outta the tabloids or otherwise harrassing her. Most everyone would agree that is what happened. The media honored the request. Then the daughters of President Bush made a bit of a splash being, well, young girls. After a while that went away. The press is not targeting the Obama girls, pardon me, daughters of the current First Family. But there are new toys out, dolls, Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia. And Michelle Obama is not happy. If you look around a bit you will find dolls, etc., on just about anyone famous. So, what to do?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

U.S. first lady Michelle Obama, who has described herself as the “mom-in-chief,” is not happy about two new dolls on the market.

Marvelous Malia and Sweet Sasha are the names of the dolls manufactured by Ty - the company that made billions from the Beanie Babies.

Malia and Sasha are also the names of the Obama daughters.

The first lady’s press secretary, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, said in a statement Saturday it is “inappropriate to use young, private citizens for marketing purposes.”

Ty spokeswoman Tania Lundeen told a Chicago newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times Wednesday the dolls were inspired by the first family’s daughters.

Later, she told the Associated Press the names of the $10, brown-skinned dolls were chosen because “they are beautiful names,” and not because of any resemblance to the Obama children.

Public fascination with the Obama girls has been intense. Thousands of people have tried to order the J. Crew coats the youngsters wore to their father’s inauguration, and a number of Internet sites are devoted to photographs of the siblings.

Miss America 2009, Katie Stam (Indiana)

Fit and impressive.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Every now and then one can recognize the use of artistic license by the author of a news report. Such is the case with at least part of the report below. But it fits nicely into the argument on this blog that President Obama is not a WYSIWYG politician. As evidenced by the phenomenon known as Obamania or some similar term there is a tendency in this nation to accept all of Mr Obama’s actions as right, above reproach, divine or in some way superhuman as the saving grace to whisk away all that ails the world.

President Obama’s executive orders related to Gitmo are not ‘designed , in part, to improve America’s image in the world.’ Almost simultaneously former Senator and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton accepted her confirmation as Secretary of State expressing that of the three ‘D’s in US foreign policy, defense, diplomacy and development only the last two would be targeted. Later in the piece below the real reason for President Obama’s instant use of executive orders on Gitmo are made clear. Activists and foreign governments have complained. Human rights activists and ‘many legal experts’ call the military trials unfair. Imagine that. Activists, foreign governments and most likely defense attorneys oppose Gitmo.

The rhetoric of playing by the rules, adhering to our values and other platitudes disguise the nature of the Obama philosophy. Kindly remember that Hillary Clinton is a fan of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama spent much of his youth with Frank Marshall Davis. Barack Obama and his Marxist and socialist influences combined with Republican turned lefty Hillary Rodham Clinton and the rest of the clan that followed her to the Clinton Obama Administration are proving by their actions what most of us new before the election. An Obama Presidency will lead this country toward socialism and the weak-kneed appeasement policies reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. Maybe that is why Obama and ACORN focused on the youth vote in America. Being mostly oblivious to history they probably have no clue who Mr Chamberlain was and the significance of a reference to him on this topic.

Change you can believe in is correct. You can believe the change will not be a good thing. And you might find it interesting in the piece below that while the Bush Administration receives an inordinate amount of criticism on this topic Mr Obama ‘would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.’ Making good on a campaign promise is the excuse now and the harsh criticism does not need to be repeated as the gesture says it all. Make yourself look good to your supporters who have lost some confidence while quietly bashing your predecessor and setting up an appeasement policy with rhetoric.

The community organizer strikes again.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“Rehab:” Gitmo recidivists thumb their noses in new video (Michelle Malkin) 

President Obama’s executive orders Thursday Jan 22nd, closing the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center and banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques, fulfill a campaign promise and impose major policy changes designed, in part, to improve America’s image in the world.

It was a dramatic moment at the White House on Thursday morning. As cameras clicked in front of him, President Obama said he was ordering all U.S. government agencies to abide by the restrictive interrogation rules published by the U.S. Army two years ago, and that he was ordering the closure of any prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency and said “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.”

The president also ordered an inspection of the Guantanamo facility to ensure it complies with the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws. He also canceled a 2007 order by former-President Bush that opened the door to harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, and told all U.S. government agencies to ignore Bush administration decisions about what is allowed and what is not.

But President Obama did say he would listen to proposals for exceptions to the Army rules for some agencies and circumstances.

The president also suspended the military trials at Guantanamo, which human rights activists and many legal experts have branded as unfair.

The closing of the detention center and the end of those trials have long been sought by activists and many foreign governments. Some detainees were held in harsh conditions in the years immediately after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. Although conditions have improved and the government says harsh interrogation techniques are no longer used, Guantanamo has become a symbol of excess in the war on terrorism.

At Human Rights Watch in Washington, attorney Jennifer Daskal welcomed President Obama’s moves. “With the stroke of a pen, the new Barack Obama administration has put the United States back on a humane and rule-of-law-respecting course, and rejected the abusive practices of the last 7 1/2 years. These orders will go an enormous way toward restoring America’s image all around the world,” he said.

President Obama said that was part of what he wanted to do. “The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism, and we are going to do so vigilantly; we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals.”

President Obama started a process on Thursday that his predecessor, George W. Bush, also said he wanted to do but never did.

The former president and his spokesmen cited the difficulties of placing detainees in other countries and concerns about what to do with detainees who the government says are too dangerous to release, but cannot be put on trial because the evidence against them is secret or tainted by alleged torture. They also said 61 of the approximately 500 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to terrorism.

At a news conference shortly after the executive orders were signed, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only Bush cabinet member asked to stay in his job — said those difficult issues have not gone away.

GATES: “These are just issues that we will have to work through with the new administration. And some of the legal issues, which are really outside our purview, are the things that the Justice Department and the White House Counsel and so on will be working on.”
PESSIN: “But is there some option out there that you identified before, but was rejected by the Bush Administration, particularly with regard to those that you can’t release and can’t put on trial?”
GATES: “I don’t think so.”

Secretary Gates indicated he does not know exactly how the issues will be settled, but he noted that since the November presidential election, a few countries have expressed interest in taking some of the detainees from Guantanamo — reversing their previous refusals.

The Secretary, who is also a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said he is not concerned about the new restrictions on interrogators. He indicated that whatever advantage the harsh techniques might provide is no longer needed.

“We know a lot more about al-Qaida now than we did in the early years of the administration, the early years after September 11, 2001. And personally, I believe that the need for measures that go outside the Army Field Manual is dramatically less than it was several years ago,” he said.

Secretary Gates is a member of all three task forces President Obama formed on Thursday to decide how to close the Guantanamo detention center, what to do with its detainees and how to handle detainees and interrogations in the future. President Obama wants answers from his new task forces within six months.

The president’s orders do not pre-judge the issues, but they do call on the officials involved to consider transferring some Guantanamo detainees to U.S. prisons and trying them in regular civilian U.S. courts. Some of the detainees have been held for more than seven years without charges or trials.

WASHINGTON — President Bush addresses supporters at the “Salute to Heroes” inaugural ball here Jan. 20. The president and first lady Laura Bush made the event their first stop on a tour of inaugural galas. The ball, held since 1953, honors recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award, and the newly inaugurated president. (Department of Defense photo by Army Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample)

President thanks veterans for service during inaugural ball

by Army Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample
American Forces Press Service

1/21/2005 - WASHINGTON — President Bush and first lady Laura Bush were greeted with resounding cheers as they made the first stop of their whirlwind tour of inaugural galas here Jan. 20.

At the “Salute to Heroes” inaugural ball, hundreds of veterans from across the country, along with their wives and families, greeted the president with a resounding show of support.

Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, stopped in later as they made their way through the inaugural circuit.

Kenneth Stumpf, one of many Medal of Honor recipients who endured tight security inside the hotel to see the president, was particularly happy to be there.

“I spent my entire life in the military, so whoever was the president, that was my commander-in-chief,” he said. “It just so happens I really like this one.”

The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. The event started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.

Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations.

With applause and cheers often interrupting his comments, the president used his brief appearance to thank veterans for their service.

“They have set a fantastic example for those who wear the uniform today,” he said. “Our veterans who have served all across the world in the cause of freedom, they have done so in a selfless way and for that, this nation is eternally grateful.”

The president also used the occasion to reiterate points made during his inaugural address, speaking on the importance of freedom and saying that United States will succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq.

“We believe in freedom, and we know that free societies will be peaceful societies,” the president said.

He also said that by ending tyranny, the United States “will have fulfilled the obligations of our founding fathers who recognized that every man and woman on the face of the earth should be free.”

With the Joints Chiefs of Staff seated on each side of the podium, the president acknowledged the difficulties being placed on the military.

“We’ve asked hard things of our troops and the families of our troops,” he said. But he cited the progress made in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Think about what has happened in a very short period of time,” he said. “The people of Afghanistan have been liberated by our troops, and our friends, the Afghans, went to the polls by the millions for the first time in 5,000 years,” he said. “Very shortly, because of the great work of our military, and the military of our friends, the people of Iraq will be voting. This is a major achievement, and it’s a major milestone in the advance of liberty.”

The president admitted that bringing liberty to Iraq “has not been easy,” but “it’s going to happen,” he said. “And when it does, our military, and those of us who have been fortunate enough to be involved with our military, will be able to look back and say we did our duty, we did our duty for freedom, and we did our duty for generations of Americans to come.”

Before leaving, the president again thanked the audience, telling those veterans who have served and those who are now serving, “I am incredibly proud to be your commander in chief.”

(editor’s note: The simple search used at Google for news on this topic in the previous post was used at Yahoo for this post. The first result returned was this story.)
Some Presidents honor the troops.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While catching up on some blog reads I have not had adequate time for in recent days I found another reminder of a problem of Presidential proportions that took place during the Inauguration festivities. Read the the first linked item below and try to convince anyone this is not a major presidential problem. The newly elected and inaugurated President whose duties include that of Commander-in-Chief could not manage to honor the military during inaugural events which included a tribute to medal of honor recipients.

There is no excuse for this colossal blunder. It speaks volumes on the flaws of a new president and gives credence to every criticism expressed thus far including those on this blog and others. To add insult to injury the results from a GOOGLE news search below where the line begins, ‘Obama Snubs Nation’s Heroes’, serves as evidence that Sean Hannity again was right on expectations about the inauguration. It is all about celebs and what they’re wearing. The link which goes to ‘ all 4,806 news articles’ is copied and pasted where the pictures begin for the first two pages of results. Funny, as this post was being prepared the number of articles in the Google list shrank from 4806 to 3804.

But more importantly the coverage by the MSM is again woefully inadequate. This also supports the notion that Obamania and the MSM’s kinky love affair and complicity in biased coverage of The One is no conspiracy theory. Over 50 years of unbroken tradition honoring this country’s heroes through 14 inaugurations since the beginning of this heroe’s inaugural ball and The Messiah decides to dishonor veterans and the MSM pretty much ignores it if the search results are any indication of what is available. But for now do not distracted by the media bias. This President may never be able to repair the damage of his choice or decision. What is worse he may not even care. And if that is the case then anyone who did not vote for him gets extra credit as an American.

Not even a simple apology from President Obama has been witnessed by this blog’s author nor is one anticipated. So on behalf of a flawed Commander-in Chief this blog once again salutes the United States Military and submits this apology for those who were ignored by President Barack Obama’s failure to attend the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Snubs The Medal Of Honor Recipients: For the first time in 56 years, a newly-inaugurated president has not attended the ball begun by President Eisenhower

He attended quite a few as payback for the illegal campaign contributions, but I guess he did not have time for those that gave to their country, because afterall, it is all about Obama. Salute To Heroes Inaugural Ball, began by President Eisenhower 56 years ago, has been the destination of each new POTUS, that is until The One.

Am I surprised? No, I am not. Why? Based on the fact that he halted GITMO trials until May, and closed terrorist ‘black sites’ .

Obama Snubs Nation’s Heroes, Becomes the First President to Skip …
Cleveland Leader, OH - Jan 21, 2009
The Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball was begun in 1953 for President Dwight Eisenhower’s inauguration. The event recognized recipients of the Medal of Honor, …
Video: First Lady Fashionista CBS
For The First Time In 56 Years An Inaugurated President Blew Off … KXMC
Obama Snubs Medal of Honor Ball Stop the ACLU
Fresno Bee - The Associated Press
all 4,806 news articles »

Michelle Obama’s Dress At Presidential Inauguration Oneindia, India - 13 hours ago Just like the election night, Michelle Obama’s outfit has once again caught in the fashion-o-meter. This time her Inauguration’ dress was both appreciated …

Michelle Obama Los Angeles Times, CA - 17 hours ago In a sea of black dresses, our First Lady stood out in a white Jason Wu one-shouldered gown at the inaugural balls. Some found Michelle Obama’s dress …

Going green Los Angeles Times, CA - 17 hours ago First Lady Michelle Obama’s sparkly lemongrass-hued sheath and matching coat by Isabel Toledo sparked the second style controversy of her new position (the …

Michelle Obama inaugural day dress makes lemongrass the new black MLive.com, MI - 23 hours ago I think charcoal was last year’s black and navy was black the year before that. But this year, it’s lemongrass or yellow-green or citrine, depending on who …

Michelle Obama’s dress designer: Jason Wu in profile Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - Jan 22, 2009 Hilary Alexander profiles 26-year-old Taiwan-born designer Jason Wu, who was Michelle Obama’s chosen dress designer for Barack’s Inaguration Ball. …

Barack and Michelle Obama: the night of the 10 inauguration balls Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - Jan 22, 2009 Barack and Michelle Obama took on 10 inauguration balls with evident pleasure and flair. Would you? By Becky Pugh On Tuesday evening, euphoric after …

First family puts a fresh face on fashion Houston Chronicle, United States - Jan 21, 2009 By CLIFFORD PUGH HOUSTON CHRONICLE Reactions to the one-shoulder chiffon inaugural gown that Jason Wu designed for first lady Michelle Obama ranged from …

Is Michelle Obama now the most powerful woman in fashion? guardian.co.uk, UK - Jan 21, 2009 President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama dance at the Neighbourhood Ball in Washington DC. Photograph: Mike Segar/Reuters On Tuesday, …

Belle of the inaugural ball Straits Times, Singapore - Jan 21, 2009 WASHINGTON: Mr Barack Obama, who fretted before his inauguration balls about his dancing skills, avoided stepping on his wife’s toes but ran into trouble …

Beyonce, Blige and Carey Stun at Inaugural Ball San Francisco Chronicle, USA - Jan 21, 2009 Mariah Carey, Mary J. Blige and Beyonce wowed Washington, DC on Tuesday night at the first presidential Inaugural Ball open to the public. …

Michelle Obama’s dress: What color was it really? The Associated Press - Jan 21, 2009 NEW YORK (AP) — So what color is “lemon grass,” really? The color of Michelle Obama’s ensemble during the inauguration ceremonies seemed to change all day …

Michelle Obama’s style: Change you can wear Los Angeles Times, CA - Jan 21, 2009 Elise Amendola/ AP For the inaugural balls, Michelle Obama chose a creamy one-shouldered gown by 26-year-old Taiwanese American designer Jason Wu. …

Michelle Obama wears it well Boston Globe, United States - Jan 21, 2009 Michelle Obama on Pennsylvania Avenue yesterday and at the Neighborhood Ball last night. (Doug Mills/Associated Press (left); Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images) …

Jason Wu’s “Dream-Like” Vision For Michelle Obama Wall Street Journal Blogs, NY - Jan 21, 2009 Jason Wu was settling in to watch the inaugural balls with pizza and a bunch of friends when his life suddenly was upended. On national TV, out walked …

(below is page two of two)

« View all web results for Salute To Heroes Inaugural Ball

Mangalorean.com

Obama calls for a “new declaration of independence” Mangalorean.com, India - Jan 18, 2009 Cummings then waved his hand in a large, dismissive goodbye gesture, saluting the departure of US President George W. Bush - to the delight of a mocking, …

Rather than honor those who serve the MSM as well as a newly elected and sworn President and Commander-in-Chief chose to celebrate glitz, bling and entertainers. The socialist left has truly arrived.

update: While checking links before completing this post, the number of news items related to this google search finally diminished to 8. That’s right, eight.

Most Americans do not support bailout plans promoted and implemented by the federal government. Even the lefty Think Progress stated that only 25% of Americans support the bailout in September of 2008. When the left antiwar crowd emphasized a poll indicating 2/3 of Americans opposed the war in Iraq, Pelosi and her New Direction for America slogan routinely pounded the Bush Administration to withdraw from Iraq as did each and every Democratic party candidate for President including Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards.

So now that Barack Obama is President, HRC is SofS and the New Direction for America claimed they had a mandate from the American people, where is the opposition to the bailout??

Rasmussen polls agree with others that only 30% approved of the bailout before the fall vote. Now the polling shows 54% believe the government must have a plan but that does not necessarily mean the one they’re using.

Both the GOP and Dems share responsibility as groups of politicians who have members supporting the bailout. Where is the opposition to legislation and policies that are not supported by most Americans?

The item below speaks more to the will of the citizens of the United States than most of anything else available. While Mike Pence is still an unknown quantity at this blog and this one speech does not render him an automatic recipient of public support his words are worth reading. Perhaps you will agree that the sentiment parallels your own on this particular issue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, gave the following speech from the floor of the U.S. House today to oppose further funding of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

“Our nation is confronted by a serious financial crisis. It’s a crisis of confidence in our financial markets. And let’s be honest, it’s a crisis of confidence in our government. While many are anxious about how we’ll confront these times many more face this moment with faith, not fear.

“We’ll get through this. We’ve confronted greater challenges than this. I’m confident we will restore our markets and renew our government. But as I said last fall in the original debate, we must do so in a manner that is consistent with the principles that make America great.

“As the distinguished Chairman of this Committee said following last week’s action in the Senate, ‘No matter what happens here today the second half of the bailout funding will go forward,’ adding $350 billion to the national debt and burdening future generations of Americans with the mistakes of Wall Street and Capitol Hill during the present day.

“Despite sincere efforts at reform. this legislation remains the largest corporate bailout in American history, forever changes the relationship between government and the financial sector and passes the cost along to the American people.

“I did not come to Washington to expand the size and scope of government. I did not come to Washington to ask working Americans to subsidize the bad decisions of corporate America. Therefore, I did not support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last fall and I cannot support the legislation before the Congress that would send good money after bad.

“As I said then, while this bill promises to bring near-term stability to our financial markets, I ask my countrymen, at what price? The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupted a basic truth of our free market economy: Government can’t control outcomes in an economy without eroding the independence and the integrity of our free market system.

“When the government chooses winners and losers in the marketplace, every American loses. Now, some say this crisis was too acute to rely on what they call antiquated notions about the role of government in the private sector but I disagree. I believe the principles of limited government, free enterprise and representative democracy and personal responsibility are as relevant today as they were in 1776.

“Now, there are no easy answers to these times, but the American people deserve to know that there were and are alternatives. Last fall, House Republicans offered an alternative that would have required Wall Street, not Main Street, to pay the cost of this recovery. And today, House Republicans are preparing fast-acting tax relief instead of more bailouts and more spending to get this economy moving again.

“President Theodore Roosevelt said, ‘An American must face life with resolute courage. Win victory, if he can and accept defeat, if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.’

“With this legislation we again - by second half - place upon the American public a responsibility which was not theirs, bailing out financial institutions after they made irresponsible business decisions. This we should not have done. This we should not do again.

“Instead, we should confront this crisis with resolute courage, faith in God, faith in the American people and the ideals of freedom and free enterprise. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing further funding of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.”

Has President Barack Obama provided any clues on how he plans to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? After taking the oath of office as cited below….

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

…President Barack Obama delivered his inaugural address. As the transcript provides in the second paragraph of his speech President Obama made reference to this. ‘At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.’ There are two troubling items here. Is there a difference between ‘we the people’ and the President of the United States? And ‘true to our founding documents’ could be viewed as a little vague. Since he is now in the highest office in the nation it is difficult to determine if he is drawing a distinction between the two especially now that he is in ‘high office’.

If you object to the preceding paragraph consider the following:

There are other references out there on President Obama’s view of the founding documents. Use a search engine with the words ‘obama’ and ‘constitution’. For example, he in populating the US Supreme Court and perhaps other federal courts Mr Obama has said this. In explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama opined that deciding the “truly difficult” cases requires resort to “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” In short, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” No clearer prescription for lawless judicial activism is possible.

Here’s a little more from the piece at The Weekly Standard.

Indeed, in setting forth the sort of judges he would appoint, Obama has explicitly declared: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.” So much for the judicial virtue of dispassion. So much for a craft of judging that is distinct from politics.

Here’s a teaser from a Powerline piece that you may be interested in reading. Yesterday the Obama campaign called on University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein to tamp down the furor over Obama’s advocacy of “redistributive change” and overcoming of the Constitution’s “negative rights” in his 2001 radio interview. Politico’s Ben Smith reliably channelled Professor Sunstein’s spinning on behalf of Obama.

Another statement holds the phrase, ‘we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.’ Says who? Hope is for losers. The minute you start a sentence with ‘I hope’ you end the pursuit of the ends you seek by abandoning self-determination and personal responsibility. You then expect someone or something else to provide the solution on your behalf. Even the lottery has better odds of success. Hope is not the antidote for fear. Fear is a natural response to a threat. Hope is not part of the solution but a surrender to the fear.

‘Unity of purpose over conflict and discord’ is choice rhetoric. It is merely an extension of the hope and fear sentiment designed by the far left to convince the weak to succumb to the nanny state philosophy that government is the answer to all your problems. It is further evidence that an Obama Administration will choose appeasement and surrender over standing up and defending freedom against those who wish our nation harm.

The next two paragraphs on ’setting aside childish things’ and ‘reaffirmation’ is merely a shot at his opposition party as well as the previous administration. It is full of contradictions in how we must change and yet continue as we are. It exposes the desire to change America and redefine that change as something we have lost which is untrue. The only time we risk losing what is and has been America is when we fail to oppose radical notions that would lead to and end of this republic as we know it.

The next contradiction in this speech begins ‘this is the journey we continue today.’ On the one hand President Obama states we are just as good and strong as we always were and on the other hand we must change. Perhaps his call to stop putting off unpleasant decisions refers to his pursuit of socialism. If you disagree with this appraisal please explain how a never ending expansion of government and a continuation of government control of private enterprise is anything other than a move to socialism? The subsequent paragraph largely details Obama’s plan for such policies.

The paragraph starting with ‘nor is the question before us’ specifically addresses President Obama’s desire to redistribute wealth disguised as an endorsement of free markets. He accepts the fact that free markets work but without government intervention they do not share the wealth equally or for the common good. Yes, go ahead and be successful in free markets but be ready to share all you have with everyone else whether they earn it or not.

Much of the remainder of the speech beyond this point continues to stress Obama’s belief that his ideas are what WAS good about America and uses general rhetorical references to history as his proof that what he believes is what we once were. These parts of the speech reinforce his intention to appease the very people who threaten this nation. They are crafted to send a message that this new leader will bend to the threat. Every time this nation has withdrawn and given confidence to those who believe we are too timid to defend ourselves we have been attacked. A return to such policies will only invite more of the same. For Mr Obama to attempt to convince the public that weak-kneed concessions and appeasement of global threats is the best defense underscores his refusal to understand history or his intent to mislead.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.” (Michelle Malkin) 

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

The only winners from the bailout and stimulus package and just about anything else to come out of the new Obama Administration will be corporations, lobbyists and other special interests not including the average American citizen. A hint at that may have come from the Obama/Pelosi video embedded on this blog. She could not contain her unrestrained jubilation while at the same time saying ‘the American people are hurting’. A little piece from The Hill demonstrates how everything bailout and stimulus starts at K Street for Obama. Like you did not suspect this all by yourself. But it helps to have corroboration. Here’s a teaser from The Hill article.

K Street lobbyists expect a bonanza this year because of the aggressive agenda of President Obama and congressional Democrats.

“Big government is back,” said Mark Ruge, who heads the policy group at K&L Gates. “It’s going to be a very, very active Congress.”

Corporations also recognize, however, that they can’t afford to cut expenses on K Street. They need lobbyists to grab their piece of the government-spending pie and to make sure that Obama and his Democratic allies do not enact policies that would disadvantage them.

Obama was only mildly criticized after pledging to use public funds for the campaign and then pulling the old switcheroo after bundling, ACORN and his admittedly successful internet scam to lure nearly about a half billion dollars from unknown sources. That’s what he calls change you can believe in. Yes we can. We can play this any way we want cuz everybody’s in love with us. Not so fast Mr Obama, there are plenty of us who have not consumed the Kool Aid.

Aside from damage that could be done to our fine country the next worse thing Obama could do is have a failed presidency with record breaking scandals to taint the historic first term of this country’s first black President. Okay, black and white president but that’s not the point. The point is an historic event that really needs to be handled correctly. But this is politics. What are the odds?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

As the United States witnessed a recurring event in its democratic processes, that of the departure of one President and the arrival of another, this blog’s series of posts dedicated to civics literacy presents a brief history of the 31st President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. Given the current conditions on the planet and those present during Hoover’s time this selection seems appropriate. A recent comment on the Sunday news programs available on the broadcast networks cited President Bush expressing a sentiment related to the current financial troubles that he did not want to be Herbert Hoover. Similarly other accounts suggested President-elect Barack Obama favors Abraham Lincoln but also draws on JFK and others.

Pay special attention to the last six paragraphs

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Herbert Hoover

Son of a Quaker blacksmith, Herbert Clark Hoover brought to the Presidency an unparalleled reputation for public service as an engineer, administrator, and humanitarian.

Born in an Iowa village in 1874, he grew up in Oregon. He enrolled at Stanford University when it opened in 1891, graduating as a mining engineer.

He married his Stanford sweetheart, Lou Henry, and they went to China, where he worked for a private corporation as China’s leading engineer. In June 1900 the Boxer Rebellion caught the Hoovers in Tientsin. For almost a month the settlement was under heavy fire. While his wife worked in the hospitals, Hoover directed the building of barricades, and once risked his life rescuing Chinese children.

One week before Hoover celebrated his 40th birthday in London, Germany declared war on France, and the American Consul General asked his help in getting stranded tourists home. In six weeks his committee helped 120,000 Americans return to the United States. Next Hoover turned to a far more difficult task, to feed Belgium, which had been overrun by the German army.After the United States entered the war, President Wilson appointed Hoover head of the Food Administration. He succeeded in cutting consumption of foods needed overseas and avoided rationing at home, yet kept the Allies fed.

After the Armistice, Hoover, a member of the Supreme Economic Council and head of the American Relief Administration, organized shipments of food for starving millions in central Europe. He extended aid to famine-stricken Soviet Russia in 1921. When a critic inquired if he was not thus helping Bolshevism, Hoover retorted, “Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!”

After capably serving as Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Harding and Coolidge, Hoover became the Republican Presidential nominee in 1928. He said then: “We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land.” His election seemed to ensure prosperity. Yet within months the stock market crashed, and the Nation spiraled downward into depression.

After the crash Hoover announced that while he would keep the Federal budget balanced, he would cut taxes and expand public works spending.

In 1931 repercussions from Europe deepened the crisis, even though the President presented to Congress a program asking for creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to aid business, additional help for farmers facing mortgage foreclosures, banking reform, a loan to states for feeding the unemployed, expansion of public works, and drastic governmental economy.

At the same time he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility.

His opponents in Congress, who he felt were sabotaging his program for their own political gain, unfairly painted him as a callous and cruel President. Hoover became the scapegoat for the depression and was badly defeated in 1932. In the 1930’s he became a powerful critic of the New Deal, warning against tendencies toward statism.

In 1947 President Truman appointed Hoover to a commission, which elected him chairman, to reorganize the Executive Departments. He was appointed chairman of a similar commission by President Eisenhower in 1953. Many economies resulted from both commissions’ recommendations. Over the years, Hoover wrote many articles and books, one of which he was working on when he died at 90 in New York City on October 20, 1964.

There is no way a gaffe while taking the oath of office for President of the United States could be overlooked with a potential viewing audience exceeding millions. First thought from this vantage point asks the obvious question. Did they rehearse this event? The second question is more of a suggestion. Justice Roberts, you could have presented the words of the oath to be repeated in smaller phrases, right? But when you really think about it all involved are rookies with the possible exception of those behind the scenes. The following quote from an article posted on this site points to the real significance of an inaugural address.

When Barack Obama speaks to the nation as the first African American President on Tuesday, people around the world will be listening to his inaugural message. Over the years, some of the most memorable inauguration speeches have been delivered by presidents who were taking office during a time of crisis. The words from many of those inaugural addresses still resonate today

.The LA Times has a title ‘Obama Sets Fresh Course for [Remaking America]’. Fox News reveals that Obama pledges to restore US prosperity and global prominence. The Christian Science Monitor goes to Kenya for ‘Obama the Musical’. And you gotta love CNN’s, ‘Obama Speech: Sober with dose of hope’. A dose of hope is what they say? That is all this whole thing has been about thus far. There is no resume’. There is no track record. There is no list of public service accomplishments unless you include ACORN and the Chicago political machine, etc.

Bloomberg’s contribution is a title referring to the speech stating the US ‘is ready to lead once more’. When did we stop? When did America lose its place as the dominant nation on the planet? Currently China has been making huge strides to rise up as a true world power but may be heading for some more growing pains. Until the fall of the Soviet Union and after WWII the United States, Russia and Britain were the top dogs. Certainly the US and Russia were the only two true world powers for all the time after WWII and it may still be that way.

Lovely, Newsweek has a piece titled ‘Removing the Stain’. Don’t even want to go there to investigate but did. The phrase does not appear but in the title according to a ‘find’ operation through the browser. There is much reference to Lincoln and slavery, go figure, so the first impression probably still stands. How much distraction will we have to endure regarding specific points in history that have already been overworked. Hey, Newsweek, we get it. We couldn’t help but get it with all the constant reminders. How about focusing on history that has not been resolved to the same degree, like the full history of public servants. Especially that which no main stream outlet is willing to confront.

Of all the things in this country that should receive some solemn reverence the Inauguration of a President of the United States should certainly be one. But that is not the only instance where this applies. The manner in which many transactions or serious activities are conducted by those involved on any level has reached a point where little is taken seriously or given proper treatment. For that to change on a large or universal scale requires those in a position of leadership to set the example again. This does not relieve ordinary citizens from their responsibility to conduct themselves properly and this is certainly not a suggestion to adopt the absurdity of political correctness. But if we are to be taken seriously the manner in which we engage the issues as well as routine activities influences the outcome. If we revisit some sensible practices of the past in discharging our responsibilities in the present and future those among us who suffer from self-induced apathy may once again contribute.

Therefore the reason for a less than flattering commentary on the Inauguration of President Barack Obama is based on what has happened since this all started in the campaigns and how little has ‘changed’ since. Business as usual, politics as usual and citizens responding as usual or not at all still dominates public and private affairs in this country. If you want this blog author to subscribe to change we can believe in or yes we can then something must in fact change. The change suggested in this post is that which is sought here as it is more enduring than isolated examples of executive orders, legislative agendas or accommodating special interest which we all represent.

Let the initiatives, proposals or policies succeed or fail on merit. Let us not support those items which may only benefit us personally. Have the courage to admit that if it is not good for the country overall is should not be pursued.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Welcome to Blog @ MoreWhat.com’s Open Trackback

Secure the Borders Linkfest

This is an open trackback linkfest. It happens on Tuesday and Saturday or… Each linkfest is open until the next one starts. Trackbacks will no longer be on the frontpage in a post called MoreWhat Matters. The Secure the Borders theme is intended as a reminder to all for obvious reasons. If you have any suggestions, criticisms, questions or just feel the need to communicate, trackback or post it in the comments. If you want to be added to the Blogroll, register and/or inquire to make arrangements. The Honor Roll is reserved for blogs viewed as special by this blog’s owner.

JIHAD stands for Jesus I Have A Deathwish.

This linkfest is dedicated to the guest worker who never left.There are plenty of illegal immigration posts on this blog.

If you’re here legally and behavin’ yo self, welcome aboard.
.
.

We suggest using the Linkfest Haven Deluxe Trackback pinger for ease of use and time savings to catch all the festive linking activities today. Or, if you have done this less than we have, the permalink for this Open Trackback is the title link and the trackback is located near the bottom of the permalink page for this post. Just poke around, you’ll find it.

links in the sidebar

NOTE: It may be worthwhile to comply with the unofficial standard of submitting your blog’s best work for open trackbacks whether here or at multiple sites. The practice may have been inspired by a desire for increased quality versus quantity as well as providing greater impact from the power of the blogosphere.

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

Woo Hoo!! It’s inauguration day in the United States. While Barack Obama scored big in the electoral vote over John McCain by about 2 to 1, the popular vote was 52% to 48%. That may be significant in election results but maybe not as a voter mandate. Both percentages are close enough to 50% to say that about half the country supported each candidate. Those who supported Barack Obama for President are understandably exuberant or euphoric. Those who opposed him are not so happy. Some of Obama’s opposition suggest we should hope he is successful as it would be in all our best interests. It may be insufficient to express that sentiment without knowing the definition of ’successful’ in this case. If he succeeds in accomplishing his own objectives that may not meet with approval even from the entire 52% who voted for him. Most Americans may hold a similar opinion as those in other countries on hopes for a new President. If his agenda is good for them personally they will approve, otherwise not. It is after all a somewhat selfish world.

The current situation in the Middle East may indicate how a new American President may influence world events before officially becoming President. In all the back and forth violence in the Middle East do you remember any time in the past when Arab countries were at odds with each other over how to proceed or what stance to take in view of the international press? In December 2008, ‘Anti-Israel protests erupted throughout the Middle East again on Monday, as Israeli forces continued air strikes against Hamas targets on the Gaza Strip. More than 300 people, including many civilians, have been killed in the assault, which Israel launched in response to a series of rocket attacks launched from Gaza.’ As this quote indicates Israel launched an offensive in response to attacks from Gaza. The United States and other Western nations have blamed Hamas for triggering the outbreak of violence. That was the beginning with expected protest from supporters of Hamas and the US and other Western nations holding Hamas responsible for the ‘outbreak’. ‘In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman, Thomas Steg, said the chancellor believes Hamas is exclusively and clearly responsible for the violence.

That is where typical ended. An Egyptian peace plan, crafted to put an end to the Gaza conflict, appears to be at the center of the diplomatic row between pro-Western Arab states, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and more hardline states, including Syria, Sudan and Iran. It is no surprise that Syria, Sudan and Iran are listed here as hardline states. Similarly referring to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan as pro-Western is not far off the mark although sometimes it is hard to tell why they are referred to this way. Two rival Arab gatherings have been taking place in Kuwait and Qatar, reflecting the deep divide among Arab leaders over how to react to the three-week-old conflict in Gaza. The bitter division is taking Arab leaders into uncharted territory. The unchartered territory is the part hinted at earlier suggesting this has never happened before or at least was not this noticeable. Could it be that the first crowning of a new king in the US is responsible for these events?

A look at other opinions expressed around the world may help. But it may require reading between the lines as is often the case in public affairs, politics or other endeavors featuring public statements. World financial markets operated with the US markets on holiday in honor of MLKjr. The other world markets posted modest gains and have a different take than the public at large over Obama’s election. Will a huge stimulus and more bailouts be forthcoming? Britain appears to be following lock step with handouts to banks and other businesses like their US counterparts. The markets appear to be hesitant in much the same way as foreign governments seem to be.

India’s impression and expectations for the new American President may differ widely from other countries simply because of their form of government in addition to selfish interests which for them include Pakistan and US sentiment toward them. The incoming Obama White House is going to be watched closely from the world’s largest democracy. India has enjoyed a warming relationship with the United States under the past two presidential administrations following decades when American policy in the region clearly tilted in favor of Pakistan - India’s primary rival. Other selfish motives are nuclear weapons treaties and test bans not to mention outsourcing of American jobs.

In contrast, Syria claims to be ready to cooperate with the US. On the one hand they say they want to work with the US on the Iran nukes problem and on the other hand they want to be friendly to Iran. Ya, that’ll work. But who knows after Pelosi and friends assumed the role of President and went to Syria and other countries to show off. As mentioned earlier Arab countries seem to be having difficulty crafting a coherent strategy on foreign affairs.

North Korea may have figured the Bush efforts would not be successful with other world leaders providing ineffective leadership as well in the matter of nukes there. One expert says NK has weaponized plutonium and no one seems to be making much of it. With nothing concluded on this topic during the Bush years North Korea may be right in expecting more of the same with Obama.

While economic concerns top the agenda, people here will be watching closely to see how the incoming president deals with the Middle East, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and climate change. A hefty workload for America’s next leader, but a leader who will have a lot of supporters in Europe who will be wishing him every success. One never knows with the EU. That could go for the rest of the world when it comes to opinion on the US. While the US takes a lot of heat from many sources around the world it is interesting how they all await the next move as if their own existence depends on it. Maybe it does. Could it be that in the EU they may oppose the US at times for the same reason those in our own country do? (selfish reasons masquerading as genuine concern)

Beijing says it is ready to work with the Obama administration, but it is also waiting to see how China is treated. The Chinese government has already indicated it considers the Taiwan issue a priority. See, it is no different anywhere. Everyone appraises the US with the same standard…..what have you done for me lately?

Many ordinary Russians have been impressed by Mr. Obama. A journalism student in Moscow named Nastia told VOA that Mr. Obama strikes her as a great speaker. She says his inauguration holds promise for improved U.S.-Russian relations following what she says was a period of neglect under President George Bush. Same problems with the bear as with everyone else when it comes to analyzing the US and forming opinions. What have you done for me lately? There was a period of (Russian) neglect under President George Bush? It is not like Putin and company were cozying up to anyone at the time. One must remember it was not that long ago these two nations ran the planet. And it may have been in Putin’s interest to appear tough on America for his own political purposes at home.

Dear almost former President Bush:
Thanks for keeping us safe. (proof is we haven’t been attacked since 9/11) Like all Presidents some of your work was successful and some was not. Take a well deserved vacation and solace in the fact that as some say once you’ve been away for a while and things calm down your ‘legacy’ will be more favorably reviewed down the road. There will be no review here and now. Well except for that shamnesty thing. there won’t be any. Damn, what were you thinking?

Dear almost President Obama:
You’ve got some ’splainin’ to do. This blog will treat you in a fashion described regularly by your friend Sean Hannity. When you do something or are responsible for something that finds agreement here you will be applauded and supported. The reverse is also true. You do not have much time to get things right. Even your far left fringe supporters are unsure where you are going and are not happy. The rest of us are sure where you are going and not happy. There may not be a honeymoon.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

$1.2 Trillion Slush Fund: Congressman Alan Grayson Grills Fed Vice Chair Donald Kohn

For a little background, according to Wikipedia Alan Grayson received a law degree and a master’s degree in government from Harvard. He went to work for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He worked with Ginsburg, Scalia and Bork. Returning to practice law he called contractor fraud in Iraq ‘the crime of the century’ and has filed suits against them. He unseated Republican Ric Keller in Florida’s 8th District in 2008.

Fox News, Bloomberg and others have sought disclosure from the Fed on money distributed from the bailout programs to no avail on last inspection. This video should be of interest to those hearing others like Pelosi talking ‘transparency’. Who knows how this will develop but it’s a nice start. Hat tip to Grayson for this episode but he could also ‘grill’ the committee chairman in the video…..Barney Frank.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Trackposted to third world county, Walls of the City, and DragonLady’s World, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.